St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-01-10
t. Paul have been guilty of the same of

Sb- dui have DSen guilty OF the same OF
| lenses.
While it must be conceded that the fail
ure by other licensed plumbers to comply
with the provisions of the ordinance can
not and does not make tine offense of the
respondent any the less grave and deserving
OF punishment, yet it may be seriously uues-
toned whether the fact that others have
been equally guilty with him, without COM
| plant by any one should not be considered
| IN mitigation OF the punishment to be i'm
posed by the Board upon the respondent.
The Board are clearly and unanimously of
the opinion that that fact should be taken
into consideration. and that the respondent
should not be made the ''scapegoat'' of
others who may be permitted to go unpun-
lShed because no formal complaints have
been made against them, and therefore.
While conceding that the violations of this
ordinance by the respondent might and
| probably do, Justify the imposition by the
Board OF the most severe penalty or punish
ment in its power to impose, viz: reyo-
cation OF the respondents license (if the
Board have that power, which is strenu-
ousy denied, with some force of
argument, by the learned and able
counsel for the respondent, yet, as it is
not the sole object and purpose of the law
to lnfilct punishment for punishment's sake
alone, it having the broader and more
humanizing purpose of removing crime and
I the lesser OffenseS by the reformation of
those who practice them, and to secure
respect and obedience to its mandates, it
is the opinion of this Board that, inasmuch
as this is the first complaint (although not
the respondents first otfense) that has been
made to them against the respondent or
anybody else for violation of this ordin-
| ance, substantial justice. in this case, will
be accomplished. and the public interest
best subServed by tempering justice some
what with mercy.
1t is. therefore, the judgment of this
Board that the respondent, James j. Dun
nigan, be publicly reprimanded for his re-
peated violations of the plumbing ordinance
| and that he be also admonShed that a
| repetition of his offense Will be Immediately
followed by the certain and unconditional
revocation of his license.
1t is but simple justice to the complain
ants, Mr.. Gustave Heinemann and Mr..
Robert Seeger. to here acknowledge and
place upon record the fact that in the opin-
| ion of this Board they (the complainants)
have, in making these complaints and thus
formally bringing to its attention the habit
| ual violation of the ordinance by the
licensed plumbers of the city. who are be-
lieved to be unfriendly to its enforcement,
| performed an important public service.
which cannot fail to be of some practical
benefit to the citizens of st. Paul.
1t is proper also to here state for the in
formation of the public that the duty of the
Board of Public Works, in granting licenses
to plumbers, is purely ministerial
The regulations observed in such
cases require the Board to grant
license tn moStpr r,iuD1h ar
upon his making an application
in writing. therefor, recommended by two
master builders, of good standing, and his
application thus recommended, approved by
the Building Inspector, the City Engineer,
and the Engineer or Secretary of the Board
Of Water Commissioners.
The Board having granted license to a
master plumber upon such an application,
so recommended and approved, have no
means of knowing whether or not the per-
son so licensed is complying with the pro-
visions of the ordinance and the conditions
of his bond, unless advised thereof by the
action of the Building inspector or the
Health Officer, i'll suspending such license.
This investigation, and the findings of
facts, and the imposition of punishment in
this case. will not have fully accomplished
their object, unless they snail result in
opSSluAIy NLiCCbiIiS IllC dllCHtlO1 VI lllS pup
lie to the importance OF an absolute COM
pliance on the part. not only of the licensed
plumbers of the city, but also on the part
Of our citizens. with the plain and saIutary
provisions of the plumbing ordinance.
This ordinance was passed to secure the
better protection of the life and health of
our citizens.
1t is purely sanitary regulation, wisely
enacted, and is wholly in the interest of in
surfing the best possible sanitation for St.
Paul.
1t may not be perfect in all its provisions;
if it is not as perfect as it should be- let it
be amended by the City Council; but in no
event, 50 long as it remains a law, should it
be ignored. or its provisions be permitted to
be violated.
Perhaps the extent to which this ordi-
nance has been violated by the licensed
plumbers of the city, with the tacit consent,
if not with the connivance of portion of
our citizens who have erected buildings in
st. Paul during the present year, cannot be
made to more clearly appear than by here
stating two or three facts which this inves-
tigation has brought to light.
The Building Inspector states that there
have been more than 3, 500 buildings erected
in this city during the first eleven months
of the year 1886.
The records of this Board show that there
have been tWenty-four licenses granted to
master plumbers since the 1St of January,
1856.
The records of the Building Inspector
show that only 497 permits for plumbing
have been taken out by the licensed pumb-
erS since Jan. l, 1886.
1t is incredible that of the 8, 500 buildings
erected in this city during the present year
only 497 of them have had any plumbing
done i'll them.
1t is more probable that at least !, 500 of
those buildings have had some plumbing
done i'll them, for which, i'll each case a
permit should have been taken from the
office of the Building Inspector. If such is
the fact. then, two-thirds at least of those
1900 buildings have had the plumbing in
them done in open, not to say willful, vio-
lation of the ordinance.
For such a general and gross violation
and disregard of law made for public pro-
lection, can it be said that the plumbers are
wholly to blame? This Board thinks not.
If every person who has employed the
services of plumber in this city the pres
ent year had insisted that the person so EN-
pioyed by him should have taken out a per-
NIT before commencing his work, and had
required him to exhibit the same to him,
this investigation would not have been nee
essary. Carelessness, Indifference or neg
lect on the part of many persons who have
erected buildings in ST. Paul the present
year has in some measure contributed to the
great number of violations of the ordinance.
1t is unquestionably true that majority
of the master plumbers of the city are, as
has been already stated. unfriendly to the
ordinance, and avowedly opposed to its en-
forcement.